DUNEDIN PARLIAMENTARY UNION.

Evening Star, Issue 6916, 1 June 1885, Page 4

DUNEDIN PARLIAMENTARY UNION.

Saturday was a private members’ night, but the whole sitting was occupied with a debate on a protective tariff. Mr A. H. Shelton, in moving “That in the opinion of this House local industries should be encouraged by the levying of a protective tariff,” said that having taken a great deal of interest in the subject of Freetrade and Protection he had sought to ascertain the opinions of all persons with whom he had come into contact with reference to the question, and, although Frectrade was a very beautiful theory he thought that members would agree with him at the close of the discussion that, so far as practice was concerned, Freetrade was not being carried out throughout the world. Of the persons to whom he had spoken with reference to this subject, one thought that Protection meant loss of freedom, and that Freetrade was freedom. Surely this was a mistake, for where Protection existed there was the greatest freedom. In another case—and that not a solitary one—it was thought that a protective tariff'of 50 per cent, meant that 50 per cent, would bo added to the goods. Many persons he found thought that whatever the protective tariff might be that amount would be added to the goods. In his opinion this Colony had now readied its manufacturing state. It had reached that state because it was growing its own labor as it were. Hitherto the squatters and the farmers had been protected. Now if they were to look to other countries for a guide, it would be found that outside Great Britain the major portion of the world was protective; and what was the reason that France, Holland, Belgium, Italy, and America were protective, while Great Britain was practically* (although not entirely) a Freetrade country \ He had read much on this point, and he did not think sufficient stress had been laid on the fact that the development of steam power was the cause of Britain’s greatness to-day. (Hear). Almost simultaneously with the discovery of steam power Freetrade was inaugurated- The speaker proceeded to argue that Ntw Zealand had sent its borrowed money away for imported goods which could have been manufactured here had there been a protective tariff.— (Hear.) The’ condition of the Colony seemed to be approaching that of America at a certain period of her history, and he took America to he the country on whose lines New Zealand should be built up on. He would like to point out the reasons which induced America to go in for a protective policy. That country was first protective, then freetrade, then protective, and then freetrade again. In 1821 properties could not lie sold for one-half their ascertained values, anil that state of affairs was now existing in Dunedin. It was time that some radical change was adopted throughout the Colony when it was well known that property worth LI,OOO would not realise more than LSOO. The same condition of things now existing here as existed in America must lead to the same result, viz., Protection. In his travels lie had come across many people who had said “We have heard a great deal about America, and that

Protection has done great things for it. Now, what has Protection done for America ?” In twenty years Protection had added 20,000,000 to the population — (laughter from the Government Benches) ; 286 cities containing 8,000 inhabitants each now existed where there were 141 twenty years ago ; and industries liild . increased proportionately In consequence, The outpilt of coal had increased seven-fold, and there were nine times as many iron mines ; while prices were wonderfully less than under the old tariff. lie referred members to a recent article on the subject hi the ‘ San Francisco News-Letter,’ wherein the writer facetiously remarked : “ We are not going to open our ports yet, and foreign traders may take a note of the fact.” It was a significant fact that all countries that had adopted Protection liked it, and none seemed inclined to drop it. In America, where the people had the greatest sway and power, they stuck out most strongly for Protection ; while England remained Freetrade. The reason forthat was this —people with property had the power and sway in England ; the working men in America. Lot New Zealand once adopt a protective tariff, and calm clouds would soon take the place of the wave of depression which had passed over the Colon}' during the past few years. He had much pleasure in proposing the motion of which lie had given notice.—(Applause.)

Mr T. C. Faknie seconded the motion,

Air A. Burt said it was evident that the question of Protection v. Freetrade was now coming to the front, and, with the feeling now existing in the public mind, it would have shortly to be considered by members in I'arliani'ont. At the last general election the viewb held on the question by every candidate in Otago were obtained, the Manufacturers’ Association of Dunedin having sent out a circular asking the views of those seeking election. As chairman of that Association he (the speaker)could assure members that tlio whole of the replies were satisfactory.— (Cries of “Oh.”) Most of the replies were to the effect that the time would come whoa something ought to be done to encourage local Industries. ’The question no\V arose ; How should they be encouraged—by bonus or Protection ? So far as his experience went, the granting of bonuses had proved a rotten system in New Zealand ; and Sir Julius Vogel had lately told them that the sj'stem had been tried and had proved a failure, though before he wont Home he initiated the granting of them. He (the speaker) held that a protective tariff was the best means whereby to encourage local industries. New Zealand, as it stood at present, was a Protective colony, and lie should show that Protection, as it already existed, had done a great amount of good. Many manufactories now existing would not have been established but for the imposition of the 15 per cent, wl mlorem duty, and consumers had been cheaper and better served since. Were a protective tariff instituted competition would increase, with the result that articles would be supplied at a cheaper rate than they now were, and money sent out of the Colony would be kept in it. Another illustration of his argument had been afforded by Major Atkinson, who in his speecli the other day had stated: “Take away the 15 per cent, tariff and a large number of the present industries would be closed at once—they could not exist.” He had already shown that these industries had done some good; close them and harm must result. It was a notorious fact that while the present tariff enabled the manufacturers to compete successfully against the imported article so far as prices were concerned, they found that when one went to purchase as a rule the imported article was brought more prominently before the buyer than the local article ; and the only reason lie could adduce for this was that the seller had a larger profit from the imported article, and of course salesmen, as a rule, did the best for their employers, and pushed the article on which there was the largest profit.—(Daughter.) Mr Holier, deplored the silence of members opposed to the views of the mover of the resolution. Supporters of a protective policy had come prepared to reply to arguments adduced against such a measure, but no member on the other side appeared inclined to speak. He argued that if industries were protected in this Colony more wealth would lie produced, and each individual member of the community would be more likely to obtain some share of that wealth. lie censured the Freetraders present for remaining silent in their seats when such an important matter came up: but they would find that Ms party would yet make a hard fight of it on the public platform, where they would not be restricted to speeches of ten minutes’ duration. This was not said with a spirit of defiance, but he really hoped the Freetraders would step forward in a manly way, instead of voting silently and in a lump on so important a question.—(Applause.) Mr Kkmmtz also spoke from a protectionist point of view, lie did not think it fair that members holding different opinions to himself should remain silent while so important a question was before them for consideration. When England resolved on Freetrade she had to pay largely for articles imported for the requirements of her people. Previously she had been a protective country, and, instead of taking a medium course, had gone to extremes. When Protection was introduced in Victoria the ‘ Argus,’ then opposed to the stop, prophesied that Flinders lane would in time come to lie a howling wilderness. What did they find at the ]iresent time '! The very street that had been designed to be a howling wilderness had some of the finest buildings in the Colony near it. The industry with which he (the speaker) was connected at this time was at a very low ebb, but since the introduction of Protection more workmen had been employed in a single shop than there were in the whole trade previously. Victoria also now competed successfully in England, in America, in New South Wales, and to a. small extent in South Australia. Colonists, here should not forget that when England became Freetrade her position was established, while Now Zealand was a young country, whose industries were for the most part still undeveloped. If a protective tariff were introduced here he believed that with her magnificent harbors and energetic population New Zealand would occupy the position she was justly and deservedly entitled to—mistress of the Southern Seas.

Dr CoLQi’iioux said lie could not help sharing the disappointment of some hon. members regarding the indifference that seemed to be abroad on such an important question as that of Frcetradc cfrsi/s Protection. He hoped that those in favor of Protection would at least withdraw some of their aspersions cast on Freetraders in that House, for it it was unjust to say that they were going to attempt by weight of numbers to crush out the discussion. —(Hear, hear.) He hoped the question would lie argued in a fair way, and without passion of any kind. The mover ot the motion kid told them that if the thirty millions of money sent out of the Colony during the past few years for goods had been expended here the Colony would have been richer by that amount. That was a fallacy as old as the debate concerning Freetrade and Protection. Suppose they had in this Colony bullion to the amount of Ls,ooo,ooo—that was over tiie mark, he thought—and they were able to import L 30,000,000 of goods, where did the money come from to pay for these goods Let the Protectionists answer that question. It had been argued for the last forty or fifty years, and it was not an original idea for him to say that the L 80,000,000 represented so many customers coming to their doors and asking for the goods which the Colony produced.—(Hear, bear.) It represented the same amount of exports, Croat Britain took what we could-prortuce, and sent us in return what she could produce better. A point which had suggested itself to him was the way in which Protection in a country promoted public immorality. Take Now York, for instance. In the New- York Custom-house the duty upon imported articles was very heavy, ranging as high as 00 and 80 per cent., and higher in some eases. The result was that merchants in London had been for many years in the habit of sending goods to their agents in New York with false invoices to clear the Custom-house. Coods of the value of perhaps LI,OOO would he invoiced at about L-10 or LSO. A gigantic system of fraud was thus created, and the immorality extended to the State officials themselves. He would refer to another point in connection

with the American trade. They all knew that America Was the place to which for many years the whole World looked for its Cottoh supply. The cotton which was grown in the Southern States was exported to England and Scotland and manufactured into cotton thread, Thu manufacturer In England and Scotland then made up parcels of goods and sent them to America, paying a heavy duty upon them, and yet in spite of this duty the goods could be sold in America cheaper with better value also to the purchaser —than the local productions. The arguments used by several speakers called to his mind the old pr< blem of a man sitting in a basket and attempting to lift himself. Certain lion, members took for granted that if they got Protection they could produce articles as cheaply and cheaper—certainly better than without a protective tariff. They would be protected from foreign competition, the manufacturer and laborer would both be benefited, ami there would be a large increase of prosperity without anybody paying for it. This was something he could not understand.

Sir W. M'Adaji thought tint the speakers on the side of Pioteetion had given the best arguments for Freetradc. Ho did not consider that Britain had such natural advantages, or that she had benefited to such an extent by the discovery of the steam-engine, as the mover of the motion supposed. He had spoken of what Protection had done for America. Protection in America had put the mass of the people into the power of monopolists. It would be far better for New Zealand to have yeomen living upon their oV/n farms than large cities full of hovels. Mr C. W. Kkkr mentioned as an example of the advantages to be derived from protective duties the result of the 15 per cent, duty upon twine for bindingmachines. There were only some three or four firms making this article in New Zealand, and the orders for it had doubled in quantity, and it was obtainable at a lower price than before. But for the duty all the money spent upon this twine Would go to America. He could mention many cases where protcctel articles were manufactured at a less cost than the English ones, and he considered that the effect of Protection would be to employ a greater number of laborers. The present machinery in the country was capable of employing ton times the number of hands it did at present. Mr W, A. W. Wathen spoke in favor of Protection. Freetrade was all very well in theory, but the question of employing people iu as many industries as possible had to he faced. They found that South Australia had been compelled practically to declare in favor of Protection—(“ No !”) —by the departure of so many people from there to Victoria.

Mr R. L. Stam’okd regretted that a question of such magnitude should come to be discussed on such a motion as that proposed. It was altogether too bald and insufficient to give a reason for the House dividing on the question of Protection and Freetradc. He would like to know what local industries were to be encouraged —those already in existence, or those which it was possible to introduce? Instead of allowing such a bald motion to come before the House, it would have been much better had that invertebrate creature which they called a Ministry introduced a measure proposing the imposition of certain duties, which would have the effect of protecting certain industries. Speaking entirely as a Freetrader, he was quite prepared to admit that there might come a certain period in the lifetime of a certain industry when some sort of protection might legitimately be imposed ; but lie must protest that no subject was more deserving of the fatherly and protective care of a Ministry than this question of Protection itself.—(Hear.) One great objection, however, to the introduction of Protection was that experience and industry proved that it would never be removed without a wrong being done to a section of the community. What would be the result of Protection to such members of the community as cabmen and the agricultural laborer ? They would be taxed in a great many ways without any proportionate increase of wages. He hoped that the motion would be withdrawn. It was quite unworthy of the great question of Protection and Freetradc—(“No”) and no expression of opinion which it was likely to elicit would he a satisfactory expression of the House,

Mr K. Ramsay thought that no arguments had been brought forward by those who had spoken on the Protectionist side which were worth replying to. Ho maintained that Protection meant the increase of prices. In Melbourne a person had to pay from 10 to 25 per cent, more for ordinary articles of clothing than he had in Sydney.— (“ No.’) He (Mr Ramsay) had had practical experience in regard to what he was stating. He had bought in Melbourne a hat for a guinea which lie could have got in Sydney or Dunedin for 15s. The reason ship-building did not flourish in America was because of the absurd protective duties on different articles needed in construction. He must say he was disappointed with the discussion. He had expected to hear the Protectionist view put forward in an intelligent away. He agreed with Mr Stanford that the motion was of no practical utility in its present form. Mr T. W, Whitson was of opinion that a community was entitled to buy the articles it required at the very cheapest rate possible. Why should people be made to pay 2d per lb more for their candles than they need for the benefit of a few manufacturers '! At present our industries were protected to a much larger extent than they had any right to be. He had been told by a woollen manufacturer that he could sell his goods against English articles without taxation, hi Melbourne candles were actually sold for export at a lower rate than when they were intended for local consumption. This was a species of fraud upon the population, which certainly should not be encouraged. The fraud carried on by duplicate invoices in America was carried on in New Zealand in the same way. The action of the Seamen’s Unions in the Australasian colonics showed that Protection could ho carried out to such an extent as to result in tyranny. A few days ago a steamer was about to leave Auckland, when it was reported that three men ■were missing. They were written off as deserters, and three respectable men taken on in thenplace ; but when the steamer returned from its journey these men were ordered off the boat by a delegate of the Seamen’s Union, and the three deserters had to be allowed to walk on in their places. Any system which countenanced things like this was a system not deserving of support. The debate was here interrupted by the adjournment of the House for a fortnight.